Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8318658" data-attributes="member: 42582">To me, some of the posts in this thread are curious, because in reply to explanations of how the current structure of PC building might be changed, they take as a premise that the current structure of PC building is a fixed constraint.Suppose someone says, I'm playing a game of 5e D&D and want to play a warrior with some social capabilities - what would you advise?, then it makes sense to suggest a Battle Master fighter with the Noble background and maybe trading off a bit of DEX and/or CON to lift CHA from a low-ish default to something mid-ish instead.But if someone says, I'm thinking about the design of 5e D&D and looking at tweaking it to make warriors with social capabilities - a common fantasy trope - more viable, then it makes little sense, to me at least, to reiterate that the Noble background is already there. Presumably the poster already knows that, and has factored that into their reflections on the design of 5e D&D.The focus in this thread really seems to be about the synergy between core elements of class build, and non-combat (especially social) effectiveness. I think it's taken as largely evident that many caster classes have this, either because their core class abilities emphasise a mental stat, and/or provide mind-control or influencing spells, etc.Rogues also I think are seen to provide this, because they are not inherently multi-state dependent and have lots of skill competence as a core class feature.Fighters (and barbarians?) are naturally the focus of discussion because the core element of their class build generate a strong emphasis on non-mental stats and they have no class elements that emphasise non-combat action except (what I regard as) some poorly-conceived Battle Master manoeuvres.</blockquote>

Verification